52. Neither the Interim Priority List nor any of the associated material promulgated by Infrastructure Australia flagged that there would be opportunities to submit new candidates for inclusion in the Final Priority List. Indeed, the December 2008 report that incorporated the Interim Priority List had advised that those projects that had not been included on the Interim Priority List would be considered 'on their merits in future assessment processes'.29 Whilst no further public submissions were received, four projects from different State and Territory governments were received and considered.30 One of these was included in the table of Infrastructure Priorities published in the report outlining the Final Priority List.31
53. The overall evaluation framework envisaged by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator for developing recommendations on the Final Priority List was consistent with the published Prioritisation Methodology applied in developing the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator's recommendations in relation to the Interim Priority List. Similar administrative arrangements were also proposed and the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator commenced updating the evaluation plan that had been approved for the development of the Interim Priority List.
54. However, a substantially different approach was ultimately taken to the development of the Final Priority List. The Prioritisation Evaluation Committee within the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator again had a central role in advising the Infrastructure Coordinator and, in turn, the Council on the composition of the Final Priority List. However, rather than the Prioritisation Evaluation Committee developing recommendations for the Infrastructure Coordinator to then take to the Council, the Council took a leading role in guiding the evaluation process, and there was significant engagement by the Infrastructure Coordinator and his Office with proponents for certain projects that the Council expressed particular interest in.
55. Under the approach taken to developing the Final Priority List, rather than an evaluation report being prepared by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator that documented how the evaluation was conducted and the results, the primary records of the development of the List were the papers submitted to the Council meetings and the meeting Minutes.32 The key meetings in this regard were held on 30 January 2009, 27 February 2009 and 27 March 2009. However, Council meeting Minutes often did not record when it was decided to include projects on the Final Priority List or why. Rather, the best record of the evolving Final Priority List was the various drafts of the List circulated to Council members prior to and following the meetings.
56. On 27 March 2009, following a meeting of the Infrastructure Australia Council, the Infrastructure Coordinator (under delegation from the Council) provided the Minister with a Final Priority List comprising nine priority projects and 27 pipeline projects. This timeframe was consistent with the COAG request that the Final Priority List be provided by March 2009. However, the List was not published at that time.
57. On 7 May 2009, an updated Final Priority List, together with an outline of the process adopted and details of further work that had been done, was provided to the Minister by the Chairman of the Infrastructure Australia Council. It now included an additional pipeline project.33 The Final Priority List (of nine priority projects and 28 pipeline projects) was published on Tuesday 12 May 2009. Each of the nine priority projects and the 28 pipeline projects had been assessed as fitting one of Infrastructure Australia's seven themes for action. In addition, whilst most of the proposals submitted to Infrastructure Australia were considered by the Council to have been focused on infrastructure issues within a particular jurisdiction (State, Territory or regional/local government area) rather than being national in their scope, the final conclusion reached by the Council was that each of the priority and pipeline projects was of national significance. In reaching this conclusion, the Council recognised that specific projects in a particular locality can assist in pursuing various national priorities.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
29 Infrastructure Australia, A Report to the Council of Australian Governments, December 2008, p. 67.
30 These projects were: the Redcliffe Railway in Brisbane to provide a rail link initially from Petrie to Kippa Ring; the Adelaide O-Bahn Track Extension; the Ipswich Motorway in Queensland; and the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal.
31 This was the Ipswich Motorway in Queensland project.
32 In July 2010, the Infrastructure Coordinator informed ANAO that he had prepared the papers and minutes.
33 The Western Australian Government's Northbridge Rail Link (The Hub) project.